whales / ballenas / baleines

These discussions illustrate the problems (regardless of ethical and animal welfare considerations) of applying sustainability in practice. In essence, the political pressure to come up with a sufficiently large catch is so great that if the mechanism for calculating catches doesn’t come up with the “right” answer, that mechanism is adjusted accordingly. The only solution to this problem is to maintain a zero catch limit, which is the only regulatory measure that has a proven track record of success. The IWC recognises that a special case can be made for aboriginal subsistence whaling by indigenous people with a continuing nutritional subsistence need for whale meat: coastal whaling is no such thing and is simply a form of commercial whaling.

The IWC needs to re-affirm that coastal whaling is simply one type of commercial whaling which is prohibited by the IWC moratorium. No efforts should be made to accommodate Japan’s claim that its coastal whaling is somehow analogous to aboriginal whaling, or worse still to permit the setting of ad hoc catch limits that would be unsustainable under any rules for commercial whaling.

7. Commercial whaling moratoriumParagraph 10e of the IWC Schedule, commonly known as the commercial whaling moratorium, was adopted in 1982 and came into effect in 1986. By setting all commercial whaling catch limits to zero, this decision cemented quite a number of earlier IWC decisions such as the moratorium on the killing of sperm whales (1981) and the moratorium on pelagic whaling for species other than minke whales (1979) that were already providing protection for various species and stocks and ended most other whaling operations on the remaining stocks. The moratorium is one of two widely-known and historic IWC decisions, the other being the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Despite the fact that the moratorium has been in place for 22 years, whaling for commercial purposes has continued.

Schedule paragraph 10(e) requires the IWC to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of the moratorium on whale stocks. This was attempted in 1990/1991 by the Scientific Committee for selected stocks but was not found to be possible because whaling has continued despite the decision and because the levels of uncertainty of population estimates and the slow reproduction rate of many species mean that it is not possible to detect trends over such a short period. Since the moratorium’s adoption, many additional reasons for maintaining it have become apparent, from the phenomenal growth of whale watching to the recognition of the many additional threats that whales face.

The moratorium on commercial whaling is non-negotiable. No exceptions should be allowed which permit commercial whaling despite the moratorium.

8. Compliance and monitoringThe discussion on compliance and monitoring is discussed in the context of the RMS (item 25).

9. Conservation CommitteeThe IWC established a Conservation Committee in 2003 following a close vote and despite concerted opposition by Japan and its bloc. This cemented a process of broadening the remit of the IWC (that had already begun) to consider whale and dolphin conservation issues in addition to whaling. The conservation committee has now done some useful work on ship strikes in particular.

Iceland, Japan and other members of the pro-whaling bloc should be asked to drop their opposition to considering whale conservation issues, agree to stop the filibustering that has hampered the work of the Conservation Committee in previous years and contribute constructively to addressing the many conservation issues that threaten whales both rare and abundant.

10. Conservation management plansThe government of Australia put forward the idea of Conservation Management Plans to the 60th meeting of the IWC and the Intersessional meeting held at Heathrow in March 2008. The Australian proposal comes in the wake of the likely extinction of the Baiji and the warnings that the vaquita may soon follow unless urgent action is taken. Urgent international action will be needed if the Western Gray whale is to be saved from extinction and there are several other populations of whales and dolphins that also require conservation management plans.

The Australian proposal is sensible and straightforward. It should be acted on immediately with countries agreeing now together to produce some draft conservation management plans for consideration by the Scientific and Conservation Committees and the full commission in 2009.

11. Convention (purpose of)The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was drafted in 1946 and indeed some sections were included from the earlier 1937 whaling convention. Though the convention was drafted in a very different era, the IWC has to some extent moved with the times. The IWC is a global convention that is capable of taking binding decisions and has progressively moved in a precautionary direction. Other conventions, such as the London Dumping Convention (now known as the London Convention) have also moved with the times, so there is no reason why the ICRW should not continue to do this. However, it would rely on the good faith of the whaling countries not to abuse key IWC decisions by continuing to kill whales under objection or for so-called scientific purposes.

Bearing in mind the moratorium and sanctuary decisions, the tiny minority of countries that wish to continue commercial whaling, the many threats that whales face, and the low levels of most whale populations compared with their historic abundance, the purpose of the convention should now be to focus on managing aboriginal whaling and on the conservation of whale stocks and not the “orderly development of the whaling industry”.

12. Co-operative non-lethal researchThe government of Australia has put forward an exciting framework for a cooperative research programme in the Southern Ocean. Advancing our understanding of the biology of whales to improve conservation measures remains important, and contrasts with Japan's lethal scientific whaling programme in the Antarctic which has failed to provide anything of significance. Australia is building on the successful model of terrestrial Antarctic research programmes where there is a strong ethos of collaboration between the various countries. This work is linked to (10) conservation management plans. Whilst the initial focus is to develop a collaborative research programme in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean, this model could be successfully replicated elsewhere.

All the IWC members which conduct non-lethal research on whales and dolphins should look at how best to cooperate towards the goal of providing information to resolve the very serious conservation problems that these animals face. The scientific expertise within the whaling countries could be more usefully channelled in this direction rather than focusing only on coming up with arguments to justify killing more whales.

13. Data provisionAs mentioned earlier, the whaling countries have indicated that they will not provide any more animal welfare data to the IWC (2). In addition, very little data is provided from special permit whaling which the whalers argue is exempt from the data provisions for commercial whaling. It is ironic that fewer scientific data are provided from scientific whaling than would be provided from commercial whaling. In addition the whaling countries will not allow open access to the DNA databases of samples of whales killed which they claim to maintain. It is not therefore possible to determine whether such databases are indeed diagnostic or not or for independent analyses of stock structure issues. For example, a paper presented to IWC60 Scientific Committee states that DNA from more fin whales has been found in the marketplace than Japan claims to have killed. Discussions of the population structure of minke whales around Japan and the implications of bycatch have also been severely hampered by the unwillingness to provide data. The lack of data provision by whaling countries is an issue of concern for the RMS (25). It also impedes conservation work in general.

The whaling countries should be required to provide full data not just on their whaling activities but also on other whale conservation issues (such as entanglements of whales of all species and populations).

14. Developments in ocean governanceThe key development in ocean governance is the Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) which came into effect in 1994. Articles 64 and 65 refer to marine mammals and specifically whales. These articles accord whales with special status as highly migratory species and thus encourage all states to participate in decisions regarding their future. In addition UNCLOS allows for the exploitation of whales to be regulated more strictly than required for Maximum Sustainable Yield including a total prohibition on catches. Another important convention that post-dates the IWC is the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). CCAMLR specifically requires that exploitation of prey species should be limited to allow sufficient prey to remain for dependent species such as whales. Another key development in ocean governance, through UNCLOS, is the establishment of Exclusive Economic Zones. However, the facts that the ICRW applies to all waters, coupled by the special status of whales as highly migratory species, requires that management of whaling even within EEZ should be under international control. Whaling countries in the North Atlantic did attempt to create a regional management body (NAMMCO) in an attempt to undermine the authority of the IWC, but have so far remained within IWC.

The IWC needs to take note of recent developments in ocean governance. It also needs to assert its position as the global convention with responsibility for whale conservation and the management of whaling. If any whaling were to be permitted within EEZs (see section on coastal whaling) or aboriginal whaling, this should still be managed by the IWC and not under national or regional management.

15. Ecosystem-based approach to management The whaling countries have perverted the sensible intentions of ecosystem-based approaches to management of fisheries to try and make a case that whales are eating all the fish. This takes attention away from the very real global problem of depletion of fish stock due to overfishing. In 2003 the IWC Scientific Committee stated “for no system at present are we in the position, in terms of data availability and model development, to provide quantitative management advice onthe impact of cetaceans on fisheries, or of fisheries on cetaceans”.

The IWC should work towards conservation management plans (10) which look to re-creating healthy ecosystems with abundant whale populations and sufficient prey to allow those whales to thrive. The notion that whales are eating all the fish has been successfully debunked and the IWC should avoid dealing any further with this bogus issue when there are so many real conservation problems to address. Other bodies including the EU have interpreted the ecosystem approach to management in a way that does not attempt to manipulate ecosystems through culling of marine mammals.

16. Environmental threats to cetaceansIFAW has stated previously that whales and dolphins face more threats today than at any time in history. These range from entanglement in fishing gear to pollution (including ocean noise), ship strikes, habitat destruction and climate change, in addition to direct takes. The IWC is the only global body with the ability to evaluate these threats to whales and come up with ideas as to how to mitigate them. However, in many situations it will need to work with other bodies in order to find effective solutions.

The many environmental threats to cetaceans are a legitimate and serious issue to which the IWC should devote a considerable part of its resources, both within the scientific committee and within the various parts of the Commission, including the Conservation Committee. The IWC also needs to strengthen links with other key conventions and create proper collaborative relationships which enable concerns regarding cetaceans to be considered within other contexts.

17. EthicsThis is a very wide subject and is open to numerous debates. For example the government of Norway included a paragraph on ethics in its document IWC/60/8Rev essentially questioning the division between commercial whaling and aboriginal subsistence whaling. Other possible topics for consideration are the ethics of governments exerting undue influence on countries, for example through development aid and other inducements, to persuade them to join the IWC and take a pro-whaling position. The ethics of the Icelandic reservation to the moratorium decision might also be considered. Whilst the ICRW makes a specific provision for countries to file formal objections to decisions, it was clearly intended that IWC decisions should be binding. The Icelandic attempt to bypass the intent of the ICRW strikes at the very heart of the convention. Finally, several countries have a position of ethical opposition to commercial whaling.

The IWC needs to take ethics properly into consideration and take an ethical position on key issues such as vote buying, the undermining of the convention through spurious legal arguments and the ethics of killing whales in a way that is incurably inhumane.

18. Financial contribution schemeThe financial contribution scheme has evolved from a flat rate contribution (with appropriate adjustments for the size of delegation to the IWC and whether the country is whaling or not) to a contribution scale where smaller countries pay less. The discussions on the nature of the scale are ongoing. In addition, the IWC has revised the way that it calculates and accrues debts resulting from non-payment of dues. By changing the contribution scheme from the previous flat rate system, the IWC has implicitly recognised that the previous scheme was inequitable. Various countries have entered into arrangements to repay debts accrued under the old regime. However, Kenya, with a debt of more than £150,000, owes such a large sum that it is effectively prohibited from participating in future IWC meetings as a result of going through a period of simply not attending meetings.

The issue of a debt amnesty needs to be put back on the table and discussed in the context of financial contributions.

19. Frequency of meetingsThere has been some discussion as to whether the IWC should move from a cycle of annual meetings to biennial meetings. As the discussion is ongoing, no country has committed to hosting IWC62 in 2010. In practice, over the last few years, the IWC has been holding more than one meeting in some years, indicating the opposite need in practice. Recent intersessional meetings include the meeting on the future of the IWC (Heathrow, spring 2008) and the special meeting (Cambridge, October 2002).

Consideration of frequency of meetings should be held after the resolution of the other items in the list. A decision on frequency of meetings would take into account how the IWC is constituted, and what its main work plan becomes.

20. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)Marine Protected Areas are an important element of marine conservation and often protect a wide range of species within a particular ecosystem. There is a huge amount of literature on MPAs and the various mechanisms for deciding the location of MPAs and then managing them once they have been created. The Convention on Biological Diversity and the World Summit on Sustainable Development both stress the importance of creating and effectively managing MPAs and there is an active discussion on the legal mechanisms to create high-seas MPAs. As several commentators have already stated, the ICRW applies to all waters, so it is already empowered to declare sanctuaries which include high seas areas and has created such sanctuaries in the Indian and Southern Oceans and can thus contribute to the debate on high seas MPAs.

If whales are present in existing MPAs or proposals for new MPAs include the presence of whales as part of the justification for an MPA, then the IWC should become involved. This will require active participation so that the IWC’s expertise on whales, dolphins and the threats they face is brought forward for consideration, even if the discussion on specific MPAs is happening outside the IWC context.

The IWC Commission and its Scientific Committee needs to become actively involved in discussion regarding MPAs which have a whale or dolphin component, even if those discussions are being held outside the IWC. The IWC has considerable expertise on the status of whale and dolphin populations and the threats to these animals and should consider identifying areas where MPAs might be created and bring those suggestions to other fora if necessary. It should also become involved in the effective management of existing MPAs so that the benefit to whales and dolphins is maximised.

21. Objections and reservationsIt is clear that the ICRW was designed to take binding decisions. The carefully drafted objection procedure ensured that in the days of large-scale commercial whaling, if one country objected to an IWC decision to limit catches, a further period was opened up to allow others to follow suit so no one country gained a competitive advantage. Norway and the Russian Federation maintain objections to the moratorium on commercial whaling and Japan maintains an objection to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary decision with respect only to minke whales. Thus the SOWS decision is binding on Japan with respect to all other species. Iceland took a different approach and re-joined the IWC with a highly contentious and legally dubious reservation to the IWC moratorium, which resulted in diplomatic objections from 18 countries on a range of legal grounds. Both Japan and the Russian Federation maintain objections to Schedule paragraph (6), which is the cold, or non-exploding, harpoon ban, which was adopted by the IWC on animal welfare grounds. Unlike Norway, which issues itself with a catch limit of around 1,000 minke whales per annum, the Russian Federation has not used its objection to the moratorium to continue commercial whaling.

Both the moratorium and the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary decisions are widely known and respected outside the IWC in the context of global conservation. Iceland, Japan, Norway and the Russian Federation should all be asked to withdraw their objections (in the case of Iceland its reservation) and thus comply with these two key IWC decisions. In addition Japan and the Russian Federation should withdraw their objections to the cold harpoon ban.

22. Procedural issues – improvementsThe IWC’s procedures need to be looked at in the context of other conventions: a discussion has already started on revising the rules of procedure to strive for consensus. The present drive for consensus runs the risk that a few whaling countries would have an effective veto on decisions that are supported by the large majority. The Commission’s proceedings need to become fully transparent. The practice by the governments of Japan and Iceland of requiring that their proposals for scientific whaling remain confidential until after the IWC Scientific Committee meeting in which they are discussed prevents a thorough peer review by scientists who are not necessarily members of the IWC Scientific Committee. In addition, the reporting procedures of the IWC need to be re-considered. Thus the IWC’s annual report is in the form of a Chair’s Report which is distributed some months after the meeting. There is no opportunity for Parties or NGOs to correct any drafting errors or omissions. Partly as a result, parties put forward resolutions for adoption, where the language in the operative paragraphs is thoroughly reviewed, so they can be clear about the decision that has been taken. Many other conventions have mechanisms that lead to an agreed report being completed by the end of the meeting.

The IWC needs to ensure that its procedures become fully transparent. Care should be taken to ensure that the present drive for consensus doesn’t result in lowest common denominator decision-making or whaling countries having the power to veto conservation decisions. In addition the IWC needs to review its reporting procedures to ensure that the Annual Report is fully reviewed.

23. Research under special permitCommonly known as “scientific” whaling, the whaling countries argue that special permit catches of whales under Article VIII of the ICRW are exempt from all IWC decisions and regulations. Since the moratorium, Japan, Norway and Iceland have conducted scientific whaling programmes with Japan’s programme continuing uninterrupted and representing by far the largest number of whales killed. Two panels of eminent lawyers (the Sydney Legal Panel and the Paris Panel), have found that Japan’s scientific whaling is unlawful. In essence, scientific whaling is simply commercial whaling in a thinly veiled disguise and therefore in contravention to the moratorium. Scientific whaling has a poor reputation within the scientific community. Prestigious journals such as Science and Nature have both published papers which are strongly critical of the practice. The Scientific Committee review of eighteen years of Japan’s scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean (JARPA) revealed very little of any value in furthering our understanding of whales in the area despite nearly 7,000 whales being killed.

Rather than trying to work out means to accommodate some level of scientific whaling by Japan through a complex scientific review process, Japan should be pressured to end its scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean and North Pacific and instead begin collaborating in a genuine research programme on Southern Ocean whales (12).

24. Revised Management ProcedureThe Revised Management Procedure is a precautionary mechanism to calculate catches that was completed in 1994 but not formally adopted by the IWC. Since then the whalers have worked to adjust various parameters in the RMP in order to give much higher catches. The RMP protects depleted stocks and requires that all human-induced mortality is taken into account. Thus, once ship strikes and bycatch have been factored in, it is perfectly possible for the catch limit to be zero. The fact that Norway has increased its catch well beyond RMP figures illustrates a shortcoming with any procedure that seeks to limit catches. In essence, there will be huge pressure to modify the procedure if the figures it comes up with are too small to satisfy the industry. This is a more general flaw with the paradigm of “sustainable” consumptive use.

No modification of the RMP that makes it less precautionary should be allowed. Instead, Norway, Japan and Iceland should be asked to stop whaling.

25. Revised Management Scheme (RMS)Discussions as to how commercial whaling should be managed are older than the IWC itself and reflect the difficulties of regulating an activity which is conducted on the high seas and often remote from public scrutiny. Concerns regarding the regulation of whaling are quite legitimate. Prior to the moratorium, for 30 years, the whalers of the former Soviet Union broke many IWC rules, catching protected species (such as right and humpback whales), exceeding catch limits and taking under-sized whales whilst falsifying the data to disguise the facts. Discussions on the Revised Management Scheme started in 1993 (described then in the Chairman’s Report as the Revised Management System). In 1994, a consensus resolution on the RMS was adopted. Since then there have been numerous attempts at annual meetings and intersessional meetings to make progress on the RMS until in 2007, due to the depth of disagreements, it was decided to suspend further work.

It has become clear over this long period that the whalers do not want effective regulation of future commercial whaling, if this were permitted, and have resisted all the key provisions. Incredibly, the whalers have even argued that the non-whaling countries should share the costs of regulating the whaling industry. At present Norway, Iceland and Japan decide themselves how many whales they wish to kill and prevent any form of international oversight. Whaling is less regulated now than 50 years ago.

As stated above (24), taking into consideration the adoption of the moratorium on commercial whaling, the SOWS decision and because whaling is incurably cruel, Norway, Japan and Iceland, should now end their whaling.

26. SanctionsThough USA domestic legislation contains the potential of sanctions that can be used within an IWC context, other countries do not have this potential. At present, the IWC has no clear means to issue sanctions. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species can require parties to suspend trade with any country that persistently fails to comply with CITES decisions. If commercial whaling were to be permitted, the only sanction would be for catch limits to revert to zero if the rules were broken.

The difficulties of applying sanctions provide an additional compelling argument for resisting the pressure to permit any forms of commercial whaling regardless of the moratorium and sanctuary decisions.

27. SanctuariesArticle V1(c) of the ICRW allows the creation of sanctuaries, a concept which pre-dates the 1946 convention. When the IWC was established, a large area of the Antarctic remained protected and was known simply as “The Sanctuary”. In 1979, the IWC created the Indian Ocean Sanctuary and no countries filed formal objections to the decision. This was followed by the 1994 declaration of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary (SOWS). Twenty-three nations voted in favour of the sanctuary and only Japan voted against. Japan maintains an objection to the SOWS only with respect to minke whales, thus indicating that Japan accepts the decision for all other species. In addition, no country filed an objection to the Indian Ocean Sanctuary decision and its last review in 2002 was successful. In 2009, the government of the Maldives is hosting a conference to recognise the 30th anniversary of the Indian Ocean Sanctuary. Since the adoption of these two sanctuaries, the IWC has developed ideas for sanctuary management plans. This ideas has been taken on board by the sponsors of the South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary and the South Pacific Whale Sanctuary, which have received simple majorities but not the three quarters necessary for their adoption through a schedule amendment.

The IWC should adopt the South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary and the South Pacific Whale Sanctuary, thus recognising the interests of a number of developing country coastal states in non-lethal utilisation of whales. It is not reasonable for Japan and its bloc and other whaling countries outside the area to resist these regional initiatives. As a sign of good faith the whalers should allow the adoption of these sanctuaries by consensus. The IWC should also support the initiative for collaborative non-lethal research promoted by the government of Australia (12) and trial these ideas with a big multinational and multi-disciplinary programme for the Southern Ocean. A management plan for the sanctuary which would assist the natural restoration of this ravaged ecosystem should also be developed and applied.

28. Science – role of science and functioningThe IWC Scientific Committee is universally recognised as the most important forum for all whale and dolphin conservation problems to be discussed and evaluated. It brings together a range of key expertise from around the world but its access to scientists from developing countries is somewhat restricted as there are only limited funds for invited participants. There are a number of issues that have already been raised and these are due to be discussed by the Intersessional Correspondence Group on Issues Related to the Scientific Committee. A key question to consider is how much time the Scientific Committee should consider on issues related to commercial and “scientific” whaling at the expense of addressing the many other threats to whales and dolphins. Thus, the IWC Scientific Committee still expends considerable time trying to deal with Norway’s demands to revise the RMP to allow far larger catches, address questions relating to scientific whaling by Iceland and Japan and deal with issues relating to Japan’s desire for commercial whaling in the North Pacific. The number of parallel meetings means that the work of the Scientific Committee is increasingly fragmented, with individual members being forced to make choices as to which sub-committee to attend.

The work of the IWC Scientific Committee should be re-focused away from accommodating the demands of the whalers and towards spending more time addressing the many pressing conservation issues that whales and dolphins face. In order to assist scientists who are on small delegations, the Scientific Committee should also look towards reducing the number of parallel meetings.

29. Secretariat – implications for roleThe IWC Secretariat provides an efficient and good service both to IWC members and to NGOs. It has had to cope with a rapidly expanding membership, an increasing requirement to provide information in a number of languages and it has had to plan several additional meetings over the last few years.

The outcome of the discussions will of course have implications for the IWC Secretariat but as with the frequency of meetings (19), this could best be considered once the outcome of the present discussions is clear.

30. Socio-economic implicationsThe socio-economic implications for Norway, Iceland and Japan of continuing whaling for commercial purposes need to be carefully considered by each of the three countries. In the case of Iceland, the whale watching industry is seriously concerned that its future is being damaged by whaling. Beyond the negative image of Iceland that whaling conveys, there is concern that the whalers have targeted the same individual whales as the whale watching industry. In the case of all three countries there is a huge socio-economic cost in terms of damage to relationships with key allies and in the diplomatic cost of attempting to argue for an outdated and uneconomic industry.

Any discussion of socio-economic implications needs to include the costs of continuing commercial whaling.

31. Small cetaceansThere is an ongoing debate regarding the IWC’s competence over small cetaceans, which is unfortunate considering that the IWC is uniquely placed to consider the status of small cetaceans and suggest measures to improve their conservation status. It is a sad fact that despite the whalers’ claims to be able to manage their catches of cetaceans in a sustainable fashion without any international oversight, this is demonstrably not the case with respect to small cetaceans. Concerns have been expressed for over a decade regarding Dall’s porpoise catches in Japan. At IWC 60, concerns were once again expressed regarding the unsustainable nature of this hunt. Baird’s beaked whales are larger than minke whales and, in common with other species of beaked whales, are little studied. Japan has resisted the inclusion of this species within the IWC’s competence and continues with unilateral catches in the absence of even the most basic scientific information such as reliable estimates of numbers. Following the extinction of the Baiji, the most endangered small cetacean still remaining is the vaquita which is likely to become functionally extinct within five years unless concrete action is taken. These are urgent and pressing matters and the IWC should rise to address the challenge.

The IWC should accept competence for dealing with small cetaceans as well as the great whales and urgently look towards addressing threats to these animals. Directed takes of small cetaceans should be ended unless they can be demonstrated to fulfil a continuing nutritional subsistence need by indigenous people.

32. Trade restrictionsFollowing the adoption of the IWC moratorium in 1982, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species supported the IWC’s decision by banning international trade in all the species of whales that were not already protected. Both decisions came into effect in 1985/6 and Japan, Norway and Iceland all maintain reservations to the CITES listing of minke, fin and other species of whale. Whilst the IWC moratorium decision has not been respected, the CITES trade ban has largely been respected. However, for successive CITES COPs, Japan and also Norway and Iceland have unsuccessfully sought either to downlist various populations of whale, or to use the periodic review process as a backdoor route to the same outcome. Regarding national trade, it is clear that the exemption for aboriginal subsistence whaling permits only local consumption.

All countries should now remove their reservations to the CITES Appendix I listings of the great whales. In addition, the existing restrictions on trade that are inherent for aboriginal subsistence whaling need strictly to be applied, so aboriginal whaling doesn’t simply become another form of commercial whaling.

33. Whale-watching/non-lethal useThe International Whaling Commission has addressed the subject of whale watching since 1975. As the only global body responsible for the conservation of whales, the IWC has provided a focus for all aspects of the discussion regarding whale watching including the scientific, legal, socio-economic and educational aspects. The IWC has provided the function of a clearing house for the collation, analysis and dissemination of information on whale watching to both member and non-member governments.

The IWC has performed a critical function of providing a framework both to help coastal states draft regulations and guidelines and to provide a forum for peer review of the scientific aspects of issues arising from whale watching. This has contributed to the overall sustainability of whale watching and ensuring that the economic and educational benefits are capitalised upon.

In 2001 IFAW issued a report that calculated the global value of whale watching at US$1 billion per annum. IFAW has also compiled a number of other reports on the various aspects of whale watching both by region and by issue.

The IWC’s work on whale watching needs to continue and expand. In addition to the ongoing work by the Whale Watching sub-committee of the IWC Scientific Committee, there is a need for more work at commission level. Whale watching is an important economic activity whose value far exceeds that of commercial and scientific whaling. It should therefore be given appropriate resources and time.

A.A. Berzin Memoir on Soviet Whaling Published« People drown out Marine Songs; Noise Pollution Endangers Whales, UN Conference Told | Main December 17, 2008 IFAW was pleased to contribute to a unique project just published by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) about a memoir written by a now deceased Russian scientist documenting the Soviet Union's whaling activities from roughly the period of 1950-1980 is available from the NMFS site. The memoir, written by A.A. Berzin is described by the author in the following preface:I have always condemned (and to do anything more was not within our power or abilities) the illegal and sometimes destructive whaling by the Soviet Union. This opinion was expressed in numerous documents, including reports and records of presentations at scientific and other meetings; these documents are the witnesses to this condemnation. However, none of these documents ever saw the light of day: all of them were marked with the sinister stamp “secret.” When necessary in this memoir, my opinion of the whaling will be supported by data drawn from these documents.

I was not and did not want to be a member of the Communist Party; but I always acted lawfully, and I never had thoughts of publishing the things that I promised to keep secret. Moreover, as it was in the interests of our State at the time, I did my best to ensure that no confidential information was leaked (I was working as the expert on whaling in the “Primorskiy Kraylit”1).

I do not know how clearly I have managed to express my position regarding the whalers themselves, but even during the whaling period and now in this memoir I do not indict the whalers for what was happening in this business, especially during the last few years before whaling was stopped. It would be the same as accusing soldiers for their actions during a war. But whose fault was it? I have tried to explain all these things in this memoir.

We can now hope that these older unhappy times have been consigned to the past. The new administration has allowed people to reveal the real history of the country, including even the most brutal parts.

A more realistic and accurate interpretation has now been made of many events which occurred during various periods of the development of different types of socialism and communism in our country. The government declassified everything that was possible, including most of the documents related to whaling.

However, to date none of these whaling documents (except for some numbers found in highly specialized papers) have actually been made public. There have been no published analyses or interpretations regarding what happened.

This is not justifiable, and from the perspective of both citizens and scientists it makes no sense to continue to play hide and seek (as some people are still doing), and to not reveal the formerly hidden truth about Soviet whaling.A.A. BerzinVladivostok June 1994Pretty amazing stuff...and although nothing will bring those whales back...an important document for reference in the current struggle...many thanks to the departed comrade for his dilligence and foresight.

Members in Yes We Can! Save the California Gray Whale THIS IS IT ! NOW OR NEVER. Hi,

Please click on this link to get the latest update on the Gray Whale depleted petition and the urgency of submitting comments by Dec. 8th. If you can, please post to as many F/B pages as possible and get the info out to organisations who love whales. Blessings to you all, Sue

Add to FavoritesTell a FriendSharePrint.DiggRedditCare2StumbleUponmore Select a service:StumbleUponRedditDiggBuzz UpFacebookTwitterMySpaceMixxDel.icio.usGoogle BookmarksFavoritesCare2 sender info:your name: your email: recipient info:recipient's address(es): Separate multiple e-mail addresses by a comma. You can send up to 100 recipients. personal messageTeen+Climbs+On+Whale+%26%238211%3B+Faces+Huge+Fine Hello, I saw this on Care2 and thought you'd like it as well.

Care2 is the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world.Care2.com send We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.77 comments A teenage boy was reported to have climbed on the back of a southern right whale at Middleton Beach, in Western Australia. Harassing marine wildlife is illegal and if convicted, the boy could face a fine of $10,000. The Wildlife Conservation Act exists to protect whales and other marine mammals because sometimes they are damaged by humans.

Typically that damage occurs when they are hit by boats. In Australia, people in the ocean who are swimming, surfing, kayaking, and boogie boarding and diving must maintain a distance of 30 meters from whales or face a fine. Marine mammals are stressed by random encounters, and people swimming too close to them can interfere with their normal behavior. When southern right whales are coming close to shore in calm waters, they are probably resting, or tending to calves. The law also protects people getting accidentally hit by a fluke or a tail slap from a very large whale which could cause serious injury or even death.

An official for the city near the beach where the teen tried the stunt said, “Adult southern right whales can reach 18m in length and weigh up to 80 tonnes if you are in the way of a tail slap or when it breaches, you are unlikely to survive.” The witness who saw the boy climb on the whale took photos and reported the incident to Western Australia’s Department of Environment and Conservation. The whale dove underwater right after the boy climbed on, so he did not actually ride or stand on the it. The department may charge him with wildlife harassment.

LISA, GRAY WHALE HERO Congratulations Lisa, on a mighty effort. I m busting to know where you came in the race, how long it took and what your feet feel like. I m exhausted just thinking about the run and I feel like I probably ran in spirit ! Thank you to everyone who has made this amazing event possible. We will have some positive Gray Whale news soon. Meantime a HUGE GROUP HUG for Lisa - and for Alan who has been tireless in his efforts to support the whales and Lisa. Sue xxx

There are only a little more than 300 Cook Inlet beluga whales in the entire world. These wondrous whales are found in just one place: the Cook Inlet near Anchorage, Alaska.

Cook Inlet beluga whales have been protected under the Endangered Species Act for just less than two years. But the State of Alaska has filed to overturn these vital protections, siding with polluters and developers who have put Cook Inlet belugas on a fast-track to extinction.

It doesn't get much more serious than this. There are only a little more than 300 Cook Inlet beluga whales left alive, and they live in just one place: the Cook Inlet that surrounds Anchorage, Alaska.

But the State of Alaska has filed suit to overturn federal protections for these critically endangered marine mammals, even as Cook Inlet belugas face possible extinction.

These highly endangered and incredibly intelligent marine mammals exhibit a wide range of vocalizations including clicks, squeaks, whistles, squawks and a bell-like clang. And they're found in just one place: The Cook Inlet near Anchorage, Alaska.

Previous unregulated hunting, pollution and climate change may have all contributed to the decline of Cook Inlet belugas, but new federal protections offer these amazing marine mammals a lifeline of hope.

I am writing to ask that you drop your legal efforts to eliminate vitally needed protections for these rare whales.

Playing Politics With Extinctionby Martin Matheny October 01, 2010 08:16 AM (PT) Topics: Wildlife Share15024retweet9,150 Views.Congress is taking a break from their duties for the next month or so, in order to head home and tend to their own re-election fortunes. Animal advocates got a tough new bill banning crush videos, which we hope will hit the President's desk soon, but we also got another taste of the kind of politics that makes Congress look bad in the public eye.

Meet Tom Coburn, a Republican Senator from Oklahoma. You might have heard the name before; Coburn is a loud, vociferous conservative who was at the forefront of last year's debate over health care reform. He's also pretty good at the arcane procedural rules governing the U.S. Senate. This week, he used those rules to full effect and blocked five crucial measures to protect wildlife.

Here's what Tom Coburn doesn't want to see enacted into law:

•H.R. 388, the Crane Conservation Act, would let the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service create a grant program to protect wild cranes.

•S. 529, the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act, does the same thing for wild cats and canines.

•S. 859, the Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Amendments, reauthorizes a law passed in 1972 and puts some money on the table for rescuing stranded whales and other marine mammals.

•S. 1748, the Southern Sea Otter Recovery and Research Act, authorizes research and recovery programs for sea otters off the coast of California.

The way Coburn tried to kill these five good bills is with a procedural move called a "hold," essentially a way for one Senator to game the system. As long as Coburn's hold is in place, the Senate cannot vote on the bills, and that's wrong. He needs to let the Senate vote.

So why does Tom Coburn have a bee in his bonnet about protecting wildlife? Apparently, it costs too much for his taste.

Let's take a look at the price tag on these five measures, courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office.

The most expensive bill on the list is the Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Amendments. It will cost about $45 million over five years, or about half as much as one U.S. F/A-18 fighter jet. The crane protections, wild cat and canid protections, and the otter program all clock in at $25 million to $26 million each, a good bit less than the $45 million that members of the House of Representatives spent in 2009 on sending mail to their constituents on the taxpayer's dime. And, the Shark Conservation Act is a steal at a projected $5 million over five years. That, by the way, is about half of what the Marine Corps spends on its Washington-based military band.

It's not that jet fighters or military bands are more or less important than conservation and wildlife protection. (I'll let you decide whether you like footing the bill for congressional mail.) But, I do want to point out that we've got five bills affecting a number of species, some of which are threatened, and that Coburn is being penny-wise and pound-foolish. And yes, if we can spend $10 million on the Marine band, we ought to find $5 million to prohibit shark finning.

One final set of numbers for you to ponder. Again, remember that we're talking about a total of around $125 million in spending on conservation. The proposed federal budget for next year is a mind-blowing $3.8 trillion. So, in context, surely Tom Coburn has bigger budgetary fish to fry than this.

You should tell him that, and more importantly, you should tell him to stop holding up the process and let the Senate vote on wildlife conservation.

Whalers in Iceland have killed over 200 whales this year alone, in the same waters where tourists visit to marvel at these gigantic sea mammals. Not only is this practice inhumane, but it is also hurting the country economically. The whale watching industry generates more than $15 million each year for coastal communities on this island nation.Send a message to Iceland's ambassador to the U.S., asking him to help end whaling in his native country and to work to protect their whale watching industry.

A SMALL VICTORY FOR GRAY WHALES We've succeeded in getting an extension for the comment period for the depleted petition. Please check out the latest update, full of important info. regards Sue Arnold, California Gray Whale Coalition. http://www.californiagraywhalecoalition.org/urgent_update.pdf We're so close to 5000 on the group page ! WOW let's head for 10,000!

CRUNCH TIME ! It’s crunch time. Time to stand up and be counted for the whales.

Please help us grow our cause from League to Gibraltar and beyond by inviting your friends, work-mates, lovers, family, community, business contacts and social networks to join the “ Yes We Can! Save the California Gray Whale Facebook Cause page.

So when the time comes, we can show the US government how much the world cares about the majestic Gray Whales who are at a cross-roads on their ancient journey. Human created threats are pushing the whales to a permanent end to 30 million years of existence.

The California Gray Whale Coalition has filed a scientific petition which has the potential to force the US government to take the first critical steps to ensuring long term protection legally and conservation wise.

There’s a crack in the wall. A tiny ray of light is shining through the murky darkness of government mis-management and political games. Right now, the Coalition needs to engage thousands of people to support the petition and to tell the US government they want the magnificent Gray Whales properly protected.

The beluga whale is considered "near threatened" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. However, a subpopulation of these beautiful white whales that calls Alaska's Cook Inlet home is facing a critical threat at the hands of polluters and developers. The Cook Inlet beluga population has fallen to little more than 300 whales, and they have been given protection by the Endangered Species Act.Yet, the state of Alaska is seeking to overturn those protections, aiming at opening up this waterway to developers and oil exploration. We need to help this rapidly dwindling population of whales by asking Alaska Governor Sean Parnell to drop these efforts to eliminate protections and to protect the Cook Inlet belugas.

We are closing in on our goal of gathering 30,000 signatures in protest of the whaling that is occurring off the coasts of Iceland. This year alone, 148 endangered fin whales and 60 minke whales have been killed by whalers in the same waters where tourists visit to marvel at these gigantic sea creatures.If you have yet to sign this crucial petition, please add your name today. We will send all the names to Iceland's ambassador to the United States with a message asking him to encourage his country's government to end commercial whaling once and for all.

Dear Ambassador,

I am writing to urge your government to end whaling. It is not a profitable industry and research shows that few people in Iceland eat whale meat. This cruel and outdated activity is damaging Iceland's international reputation and could potentially damage Iceland's tourist industry.

More than 100,000 tourists spend $15 million a year in Iceland's coastal communities, showing that whales are worth more alive than dead.

Whaling is inherently cruel with independent scientific research proving it can take more than half an hour for a harpooned whale to die — this is unacceptable in a civilised society.

Failing to protect Iceland's whales by continuing this cruel activity could damage prospects for EU membership.

The new government has an opportunity to put an end to the activities of the few remaining whalers and show Iceland as a progressive, conservation-minded country.

The world is watching. Please act now. Tell your government to end commercial whaling in Iceland once and for all and protect Iceland's valuable whale watching industry.

DEPLETED PETITION GRAY WHALES Hi, We're days away from a decision by the US government as to whether they will accept or reject the petition to upgrade the Gray Whales to depleted status. Meantime, here's the latest news alert with all the latest info ! Definitely worth reading. http://www.californiagraywhalecoalition.org/action_alerts.shtml. As soon as we know the decision, it will be posted to everyone. Thank you all so much for the fantastic response. Almost 2,000 comments of support received by US National Marine & Fisheries. Wow, some effort ! Sue Arnold CEO California Gray Whale Coalition. Please circulate the news alert.

Thanks to the support of our community that cares, we were able to send over 34,000 signatures to the Iceland's U.S. Ambassador Hjalmar Hannesson urging him to put pressure on his home country's government to put an end to commercial whaling. It's an enormous achievement but more needs to be done!If you haven't signed our online petition in support of this vital cause, please consider doing so now. Whalers in Iceland have killed over 200 whales this year alone. These deaths are not only unnecessary, but are also affecting the country's lucrative whale watching industry. Encourage Iceland's government to protect whales and tourism: Sign today!

NMFS DENIES DEPLETED PETITION Hi Everyone, the National Marine & Fisheries Service denied the scientific depleted petition as expected. Learn the latest on this David and Goliath battle to save the majestic Gray Whales. Go to http://www.californiagraywhalecoalition.org/action_alerts.shtml for a current update.

I wanted to thank you personally for signing our petition to stop Iceland's whale slaughter, and for being part of the IFAW family.

If you've ever had the chance to see whales in person, then you know what a breathtaking experience it is. They truly live up to their reputation as the majestic, gentle giants of the sea. That's why our work to save whales is so critical, and so timely.

Of course, our campaign to end whaling is just one part of IFAW's mission to save animals in crisis wherever they may be.

Right now, in all parts of the world, IFAW staff members and our partners are working tirelessly to rescue animals from cruelty and neglect, to protect them from ruthless poachers and commercial industries, and to save the critical habitat they call home: Our companion animals program works to spay/neuter, vaccinate, and treat injured and ill dogs and cats in the U.S., Canada, South Africa, China, Indonesia, Germany, Mexico and elsewhere. IFAW protects elephants from poachers by funding rangers and conducting anti-poaching trainings, and safeguards critical habitats for elephants by supporting protected parks and reserves. Our Emergency Relief team has rushed to 33 natural disasters in just the last 5 years, rescuing and caring for many thousands of animal victims of floods, hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis. IFAW's long-standing campaign against Canada's commercial seal hunt helped define the animal welfare movement. Our efforts in shutting down the markets for seal parts helped save 200,000 seals in 2010. We've played a major role in combating the illegal trade in wildlife. eBay's decision to ban ivory from its site came in the wake of an IFAW report on the rampant online trade in wildlife. Of course, none of this work would be possible without the support of people like you. Thank you again for acting on behalf of whales, and for taking part in our fight to save animals from cruelty and crisis around the world.

From the IFAW Whale Blog.IFAW Work Lays Foundation for Better Understanding Whale HabitatA recent article in Scientific American did a terrific job explaining the concept of acoustic habitat fragmentation for the critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale. Read More >

Whale research vessel sets sail to protect marine mammals around the UK and IrelandA unique, non-invasive whale research boat leaves port this week to carry out vital survey work around the coast of the UK and Ireland. The International Fund for Animal Welfarea TMs (IFAW) state-of-the-art vessel Song of the Whale (SOTW), berthed in Ipswich, sets sail tomorrow (Tues) for Plymouth, from where it will embark on a three-week [...] A unique, non-invasive whale research boat leaves port this week to carry out vital survey work around the coast of the UK and Ireland. The International Fund for Animal Welfarea TMs (IFAW) state-of-the-art vessel Song of the Whale (SOTW), berthed in Ipswich, sets sail tomorrow (Tues) for Plymouth, from where it will embark on a three-week [...] Read More >

The oil might be out of sight, but it shouldna TMt be out of mindThe undersea geyser of oil that began with an explosion more than three months ago has stopped but that doesna TMt mean the damage is done by any means. While the economic wounds and the oiled birds and sea turtles are easiest to observe and count, the damage to unseen wildlife and the Gulf of Mexico [...] The undersea geyser of oil that began with an explosion more than three months ago has stopped but that doesna TMt mean the damage is done by any means. While the economic wounds and the oiled birds and sea turtles are easiest to observe and count, the damage to unseen wildlife and the Gulf of Mexico [...] Read More >

In Iceland countless critically endangered fin whales are murdered for their meat every single year. It's time to put an end to this slaughter!»The whales are killed by an Icelandic whaling company and shipped off to Japan, even though the whale market in Japan is dying.The whaling company has shown no remorse for killing this endangered species, viewing them as an "abundant marine resource." These whales could soon become extinct!Take action today. Together we can protect the fin whales in Iceland!»

Stop Icelandic whaling

DiggStumbleUponRedditPrintE-Mail .

signatures: 52,190signature goal: 53,000post to facebooktweet thisemail your friendsget the widget.Target: Icelandic GovernmentSponsored by: Alec HopfEvery year in Iceland, thousands and thousands of critically endangered fin whales are killed for their meat, by an Icelandic whaling company, called Hvalur. Kristjan Loftsson, the big boss of Hvalur exports this whale meat to Japan, where it is considered tastier than Minke whale meat.

However, there is a dying market for whale meat in Japan. If every single one of us can sign this petition, then we could help end this cruel slaughter forever.

The following statement was said by Kristjan Loftsson: Whales are just another fish for me, an abundant marine resource, nothing else.

So, if you would like to end the whale slaughter in Iceland, then please sign this petition.